Public Bill Committee

Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Olner. During your absence this morning, in our debate on clause 11, the Financial Secretary referred at length to a letter that he had distributed to members of the Committee. I was puzzled by that as I did not recall seeing it, but I did not raise it at the time because I assumed that I was perhaps the only Member who had not had it. I then discovered a copy of the letter in my second post at lunchtime.

John Butterfill: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Clause 11

Pre-release access

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

Theresa Villiers: I did not receive the letter either, but I was able to obtain a copy during the interval between the Committee’s sittings.

John Butterfill: Order. At least the Chairman had a copy.

Theresa Villiers: I want briefly to flag up the issue of devolved statistics, which the Minister could deal with either now or under clause 18. There is a reference to devolved statistics in clause 11(6), and it would be useful to have the Minister’s clarification as to what it means. I do not think that that concept is defined in the Bill, but he may be able to correct me.
As I shall explore in our debates on clause 18, the concept of devolved statistics raises certain concerns about the fragmentation of statistics across the UK. There is consensus on both sides of the House that we want to avoid the fragmentation of statistics and to grapple with and reduce the related problems that have arisen. Subsection (6) seems to insert the concept of devolved statistics, which could cause a problem and exacerbate the fragmentation difficulty that the Bill is partly designed to deal with. I reiterate that I am happy to deal with that point in our debates on clause 18.
I reserved my next point for this part of the debate because it was not really covered by the amendments. Subsection (8) refers to the rules on pre-release access relating to
“statistics in their final form prior to publication.”
 Leaving aside for a moment all the discussions that we had this morning about who should decide what the rules are, it seems to me that a key problem with pre-release is the use of information prior to the finalisation of figures circulating around Departments—possibly to be leaked or used to soften up the news agenda in the way that we discussed.
 The drafting in subsection (8) seems to suggest that there will be no regulation of the raw data and statistics and their use until the last i has been dotted and the last t has been crossed. Does the Minister expect that the new rules will provide guidance as to how data should be dealt with—who may see it, who may use it and what treatment it may receive—prior to the finalisation of its release for circulation? If there is to be complete freedom to use and circulate data before they reach their final form, that seems to constitute a significant loophole in the rules that the Minister is contemplating.

Rob Marris: May I reciprocate a favour that the hon. Lady extended to me earlier? I think she will find the definition of devolved statistics in clause 63.

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful for that clarification, but it would still be useful to have further clarification from the Minister as to how all this will work and how we will prevent it from leading to further fragmentation problems.
In conclusion, I say only that for the reasons we discussed earlier, the official Opposition would like the opportunity to vote against the clause. We believe that the board and not Ministers should set the rules on pre-release.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

John Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Olner. Not forthe first time, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West did my job for me. I was not quick enough to catch your eye. I want to say to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that I signed the letters on Friday. They went into the system. I shall look into the fact that he and one or two other members of the Committee have not received a copy of the letter. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that.

Clause 12

Assessment

Theresa Villiers: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in clause 12, page 6, line 11, leave out ‘At the request of the appropriate authority’.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 143, in clause 12, page 6, line 12, leave out ‘National’ and insert ‘official’.
No. 144, in clause 12, page 6, line 13, leave out ‘in relation to’ and insert ‘by the authorities responsible for producing’.
No. 184, in clause 12, page 6, line 14, at end insert—
‘(1A) In the absence of a request from the appropriate authority under subsection (1), the Board shall be permitted to assess and determine whether the Code of Practice has been complied with in relation to any official statistic, provided that it consults the authority responsible for producing a relevant statistic before commencing the assessment.’.
No. 145, in clause 12, page 6, leave out lines 15 to 18.
No. 146, in clause 12, page 6, leave out lines 25 to 40.
No. 71, in clause 12, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
‘(9) The Board shall have the authority to initiate an assessment process to designate any set of official statistics as National Statistics.
(10) Before initiating a process under subsection (9), the Board shall inform the appropriate authority.’.
No. 148, in clause 14, page 7, line 17, leave out ‘and 13(1)’.

Theresa Villiers: I propose to be brief on this set of amendments because it mainly raises the same issues about scope that were discussed extensively on Thursday under the first group of amendments to clause 10. Amendments Nos. 142 and 144 are linked to those that were discussed in the earlier groups and would transform the duty of the board to assess particular statistics against the requirements of the code of practice into a duty to assess whether Government Departments are complying with the code.
Amendments Nos. 145, 146 and 148 are consequential changes that are linked with those two amendments of substance. Their effect would broaden the scope of the reform from statistics nominated by Ministers to become national statistics to cover all official statistics. The Opposition strongly support the amendments for reasons that were given at length in the earlier debate. The Minister assured the Committee that he expected the board to promote the code as a code of good practice throughout all Departments. However, that still leaves in tact the two-tier structure for statistics about which many have expressed concerns. It also still leaves Departments free to ignore the code should they so wish in relation to departmental statistics that are not national statistics.
The board would be without the authority to impose and enforce the code against Departments. In the Minister’s words, it would have only an audit function, not a regulatory one. As Dr. Ivan Fellegi, the chief statistician of Canada, said to the Treasury Committee, it is a power to name and shame. In effect, there is little difference between that power and that which the Statistics Commission already has, so for the reasons given in the earlier debate the Opposition strongly support the amendments.
Amendment No. 184 is slightly different. It provides an alternative and less radical way in which to tackle the same worry that we discussed on Thursday. Rather than completely demolish the two-tier structure and apply the code to all Departments, and hence to all official statistics, the amendment would merely remove a Minister’s right to veto the commencement of the assessment process for a statistic to go into the national statistic system and be governed by the full rigour of the reforms that we are debating today.
Although the change is not as comprehensive a change as that proposed under the other amendments, it is a compromise option that would mitigate several of the worries that have been expressed about the Bill. The board would still have only an audit rather than a regulatory function, but at least Ministers would no longer have the right to keep certain departmental statistics out of the national statistics system or be able to determine whether the legislation applied to their statistics in full or not, which would remedy an important flaw in the Bill.
As I said last Thursday, it is difficult to see that the prospect of independent audit and scrutiny will motivate Ministers to opt into the new system. AsDr. Fellegi said to the Treasury Committee, that is more likely to be a disincentive rather than an incentive to opt in.
The Minister told the Committee last week that he expected the proposed system to evolve, but unless the Bill is amended it will evolve only at the pace that Ministers wish. If the amendment is adopted, the board will have the power to drive that process of evolution and determine which numbers are important enough to be brought within the new framework and be subjected to the code of practice as part of the national statistics system.
The Minister’s main counter to my argument was that some statistics were important enough for the code to be applied to them and some were not. The Opposition believe that all official statistics are important enough to merit that treatment, and to merit good practice, integrity and honesty. However, if we cannot persuade the Minister on that point I hope he will consider the issue of who would take the decision about which statistics are important enough to be subjected to the code of practice.
The Minister stated that there was a significant difference between statistics on how many television licences the Department holds, for example, and those on UK jobless figures. The Financial Secretary referred to those two figures as being of a significantly different magnitude and he argued that they should be subjected to different treatment, but who is to say whether statistics on business survival rates or armed forces medical discharge, for example, which are not national statistics, are less important that the cider survey and the monthly statement on bricks, blocks and cement, which at present are national statistics?
The Minister focused strongly on the distinction between important, significant statistics that require the application of the code of practice and what he saw as less significant statistics that did not require the application of the code of practice. At the very least, if that distinction is as important as the Financial Secretary suggested, it should be the board that takes that decision; it should not be left to Ministers as that would leave a significant loophole in the framework set up by the Bill. If the reform is to succeed, the board should make the call on which statistics are important enough to be subject to a code of integrity and impartiality. We hope that the Minister will seriously consider accepting the amendment.

Vincent Cable: We are dealing with a sub-set of issues around the bigger question of the two-tier system, and the Minister’s role in deciding which should belong to which category. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet helpfully suggested a compromise to enable the board to have a role in the process. My amendment, which in some respects is even more of a compromise, is another way of approaching the same problem, but it gives the board a status in the process.
 We argue that the board should have the authority to initiate an assessment process to designate any set of official statistics as national statistics. At least that would give the board some access to the problem to challenge ministerial discretion. My amendment is a modest, compromise proposal and I would be surprised if the Minister could advance strong reasons why it is not acceptable. In the spirit of trying to find a middle way between the Government’s proposals and an outright abolition of the two-tier system, I hope that the Minister will accept one or other of the amendments.

John Healey: The Opposition seem to be proposing what is, to put it bluntly, an extraordinary arrangement in amendments Nos. 142 to 146 and 148. The proposal appears to be that the board will assess all official statistics against the same code and without specific requests for it to do so. To me and, I hope, to other members of the Committee, that is clearly absurd. It is a certain recipe for rendering the board ineffective. The approach proposed by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet risks drawing the new statistics board into a sea of statistical assessments and approvals.
The statistics produced by several hundred public bodies are already captured in the core definition of official statistics that we have debated and approved in clause 6. The range is vast and the volume is greater still, but often, I have to say, in inverse proportion to their importance. I have been doing a bit of work to try to gauge some of the statistics that, under clause 6, will constitute official statistics, including the sources of those data, which increasingly are new under freedom of information in relation to parliamentary questions.
 Examples of what would now be classified as official statistics include, from parliamentary questions, the level and source of departmental income arising from unclaimed lost property in the royal parks, the number of calls made from call centres in the Department for Transport using predictive diallers, how much has been spent by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on dieting and vitamin supplements since 1997 and—this is my favourite—the total amount spent on Ferrero Rocher chocolates in UK embassies.

Andy Reed: What was the answer?

John Healey: My hon. Friend obviously takes a closer interest in the detail than I do. I am the Minister for statistics and, although I noticed that the question was asked, I did not investigate the answer. He might like to check Hansard for himself on that and do his own research.

David Gauke: I did not ask the question, but as Ferrero Rocher is based in my constituency in the UK, may I say that I think such consumption should be encouraged?

John Healey: I suspect that there may be a multiple of hits on the Hansard search engine after our proceedings. I welcome the constituency connection that the hon. Gentleman has.

Theresa Villiers: The Minister is very gracious in giving way again. I think that he has misunderstood the impact of amendments Nos. 142 to 144. They would not require the board to carry out an assessment process in relation to each and every statistic; they would require the board to monitor the statistical activities of the different Departments. That is a different thing.

John Healey: With respect to the hon. Lady, I do not misunderstand her argument at all, because she has made it several times. Her fundamental objection is to what she calls two-tier statistics. The case that the range of official statistics that I have set out in my exposition can or should be treated in the same way for the board’s assessment and approval functions is clearly flawed. I hope that at least we can agree on that principle.
However, it is right and it is reasonable, as the hon. Lady has also argued, that we expect all official statistics to be produced with integrity. We have discussed that point in Committee and I confirm that I entirely accept it, for this reason. We have given the board an objective of monitoring the production and publication of all official statistics and commenting on concerns about the quality and good practice in relation to all official statistics. I have also made it clear that I expect that the board will do that in part through promoting the code of practice for national statistics as a code of practice across all official statistics, clearly laying out good practice and standards in the production of statistics for all to follow.
 However, the active assessment programme will necessarily bring with it certain resource and operational implications for the board and the data producers. Rightly, we want to concentrate the programme on the core statistics that are the key indicators on which the Government, business and the public rely for an accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive and meaningful description of the United Kingdom in this day and age.
Surely what is important is not that all official statistics should be covered by the assessment and approval function and remit of the board, but that all the most important statistics are. That is why we have said that the established set of about 1,300 national statistics will be subject from the outset to the new system of independent board assessment and approval against the code of practice that the board will draw up and use for such assessments.

Rob Marris: Am I misreading, or does my hon. Friend agree that were amendments Nos. 142 to 144 to be accepted, clause 12(1) would read, “The Board must, in accordance with this Part, assess and determine whether the Code of Practice for Official Statistics under section 10 has been complied with by the authorities responsible for producing any official statistics.”?

John Healey: My hon. Friend has a keen eye for detail, and in my view he is absolutely right. I started by saying that the practical effects of amendmentsNos. 142 to 146 and amendment No. 148 were precisely as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has tried to argue in principle. She does not accept the concept of two-tier statistics—that some statistics are more important than others and should be subject to greater scrutiny. Under our proposals, there will be a rigorous, independent system of assessment and approval. My hon. Friend is right. If the hon. Lady seeks to press the amendments, I shall ask my hon. Friends to resist them.
If we accept that it is right in principle to concentrate on what matters most, that raises the question of where to draw the boundary in practice. This debate is important, because it cuts to the heart of the proposals in the Bill and the concerns that some have expressed.
The nature and number of official statistics is ever-changing and rapidly increasing, and the boundaries are becoming blurred. As I showed with one or two perhaps extreme examples, they are very wide-ranging. We have drawn the scope of official statistics as defined in the Bill extremely wide and flexible on purpose. We did so to reflect our desire that the board should be able to promote and safeguard the quality of the wide and ever-evolving range of data produced and used by the Government.
 In seeking to frame a practical and principled argument about where any boundary or definition may be drawn, it is important to understand the changing nature of Government statistics—particularly if one wants to argue that the current set of national statistics is not the right starting point, despite the fact that our system can evolve in future. The changing nature of statistics and the method of their collection means that we no longer use only the traditional collection methods of census and survey. Increasingly, important statistics are derived from administrative and management systems such as those used for the delivery of the benefit or education systems.
Undoubtedly, statistics derived in that way are often important—often more so than the examples that I gave earlier. However, they impose additional and different statistical challenges, given that the primary purpose of the system that produces the data is not itself statistical.
For example, concerns have been expressed, including during our consideration of this Bill, about Home Office statistics. However, as we have heard in recent weeks, apparent statistical problems are in fact a manifestation of other problems that are not statistical. Of course we would want to deal with those statistical issues, but the solutions are primarily administrative or policy-related and not statistical. It would be unrealistic and misleading to suggest otherwise. With the best will in the world, there may be occasions when data derived from management or administrative systems would not and could not meet the standards set out in a code of statistical practice.
The current scope of national statistics in this country is wide and comparable with those of most of our international comparators. However, the additional benefit of the proposed system is that it does have the scope to evolve in the light of experience. Therefore, additional statistics can be put forward for assessment and approval as new national statistics, thus allowing both adaptation to changing statistical demands and an increase in the scope of national statistics.
I will not rehearse our arguments about where this responsibility should lie unless the Committee particularly presses me. I have explained why Ministers must ultimately decide, given their responsibility for their Departments. Equally, I have been clear that the board will be able to comment on which statistics should be national ones.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks suggested that if the board had the power to recommend that change, it would be
“a huge comfort to those of us worried about that point. Nobody is arguing that every conceivable line of official statistics should become a national statistic at the whim of the board”.—[Official Report, 8 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 108.]
I hope that that is still his view now that we are in Committee because I have said not only that I would expect the board to comment on which statistics should be national ones but that this will encourage more statistics into the system. I have been very clear that one of the board’s objectives in discharging its responsibilities is to safeguard the comprehensiveness of the official statistics system, including national statistics. However, in the end, Parliament has the scope and the role under the provisions of this Bill to hold Ministers and the board to account for what they do and do not decide to do.
 Therefore, I do expect the board to comment on such matters. I also expect Parliament to take a strong interest in those matters—and the board’s statements on them—and to call Ministers to account when departmental outputs or activities have been commented on, but not recommended, for inclusion as national statistics. I hope that this has been a useful debate and that, in the light of my further clarification and explanation, hon. Members will not press amendment No.142 or seek to move the others in the group.

Vincent Cable: The Minister has made some sensible points, but he has not answered the issue raised in amendment No.78. He quite correctly said that the decision as to whether something should be a national or an official statistic must be governed by considerations other than statistical ones, such as administrative factors. That is absolutely true and a perfectly valid point. That is why it is important and quite right to say that one does not need some overarching bureaucratic structure which necessarily involves the board.
 However, he then conceded the central point that the board should have a role in making comments. How is that different from our suggestion that the board be given the authority to initiate an assessment process to designate any set of statistics official or national and a pro-active role in selecting cases that seem anomalous. The Minister’s essential point is that the definition will remain fluid and determined by many other factors which are not necessarily statistical so what is the problem with the proposed amendment?

Theresa Villiers: The Minister may consider that the Opposition’s proposals are not practical, but they are supported by a range of organisations which contributed to the consultation process. I drew the Committee’s attention to their comments at great length on Thursday afternoon. I do not propose to do that again, but the Committee should listen when organisations such as the Statistics Commission, the Royal Statistical Society and a host of other organisations that responded to the consultation express strong support for the abolition of the two-tier system and for expanding the scope of the code of conduct to official statistics. That is evidence that this is not some hare-brained, impractical scheme. There is no reason why we cannot trust the board to come up with a proportionate and common-sense code of practice that is capable of being applied across the board to the statistical activities of Departments.
Like the Minister, I will not rehearse the arguments that we pursued on Thursday and on Second Reading, but if a statistic is worth producing and relying on, it is worth producing in accordance with the principle of good practice that will be set out in the statutory code at the heart of this reform.
The Minister himself said that there was an issue as to where to draw the boundary between those statistics that are and those that are not sufficiently important to be subjected to the code of practice . We do not believe that that boundary should be drawn at all, for the reasons that I have given. However, the Minister acknowledged that the boundary was crucial and said a few minutes ago that it went to the heart of the matter. Yet it is Ministers who will decide the boundary under the scheme proposed by the Government. If this is really at the heart of the matter and the Bill—I agree with him that it is important—I appeal to the Minister to accept amendment No. 184. Even the amendment tabled by my Liberal colleague, the hon. Member for Twickenham, would do something to mitigate the problem; the boundary would be determined by the board and not by Ministers. That would mean that many of the concerns expressed by people such as Lord Moser, and by the Statistics Commission and the RSS would be answered. It is not ideal, but it is a sensible and defensible compromise.
If the Minister is so enthusiastic about the board’s power to comment on the scope of national statistics and its power to recommend the designation of a statistic as a national statistic, why can he not go that one bit further, give the board real teeth and allow it to require that the assessment process is started? If the Minister wants to claim the place in history that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said was there for the taking, I appeal to him to accept amendment No.184 or others in this group.

John Healey: I feel that I should respond to the hon. Member for Twickenham. We had a principled and detailed debate about the points that he raised today in a sitting last week that he may not have attended. In essence, in a decentralised system the responsibility for submitting statistics for assessment must lie with the Departments. My argument is that Ministers are responsible for making policy and arguably, as such, are better placed to know which statistics are most critical for the development and delivery of that policy. Ministers are also responsible and accountable for allocating and managing resources in their Department, including those devoted to statistical production. Principally, I see those as policy and resource decisions and, therefore, as more appropriate matters for Ministers than for the statistics board. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and does not try the patience of the Committee too much.
I am still not persuaded by the arguments made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. No matter how many representations she has received in support of them, they are not necessarily right or practical. I urge my hon. Friends to resist them.

John Butterfill: Order. Which amendments is the hon. Lady prepared to withdraw and which does she wish to press to a vote?

Theresa Villiers: I would be grateful if theCommittee were able to vote on amendments Nos. 142 and 184.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 184, in clause 12, page 6, line 14, at end insert—
‘(1A) In the absence of a request from the appropriate authority under subsection (1), the Board shall be permitted to assess and determine whether the Code of Practice hasbeen complied with in relation to any official statistic, provided that it consults the authority responsible for producing arelevant statistic before commencing the assessment.’.—[Mrs. Villiers.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 71, in clause 12, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
‘(9) The Board shall have the authority to initiate an assessment process to designate any set of official statistics as National Statistics.
(10) Before initiating a process under subsection (9), the Board shall inform the appropriate authority.’.—[Dr. Cable.]

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Re-assessment

Question proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe Bill.

John Healey: This is the first of a series of clauses that provide important supplementary functions for the statistics board. The others—clauses 14 to 17—deal with programmes of assessment, principles and procedures, lists of national statistics and transitional provisions. Clause 13 provides for the reassessment of statistics, designated as national statistics under the previous clause, in order to determine whether they continue to comply with the code of practice. Thereafter, their designation as national statistics can be either confirmed or cancelled. This process will apply either because the statistics have been assessed previously by the board as meeting the code or because they are national statistics at the commencement of the new system. I suspect and hope that there will be rather less contention around this and some of the subsequent clauses, but nevertheless it is important and I commend it to the Committee.

Rob Marris: I would like to ask my hon. Friend about the time frame for clauses 13 to 15, because I do not see one. Clause 16 refers to “once every financial year”, and clause 17 contains transitional provisions for the old regime to continue until the new one is in place, but clauses 13 and, as I read them, 14 and 15, set no time limit on the board and could leave us struggling on under the old regime indefinitely. That seems rather unsatisfactory. Has he thought about including a time limit in the clauses to ensure that the board carries out its functions within, for example, a year of the Act receiving Royal Assent?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. It would be undesirable and unacceptable for the transitional period to struggle on for a long time. I explained earlier that I want to move quickly as the legislation proceeds through Parliament and to appoint a chairman of the shadow board. With the good will of those who want the system to work, I expect and hope that the board will be up and running without undue delay. This will be one of its core functions and something to which I expect it to give its attention early on. In principle, he might have put his finger on a potential problem, but in practice I do not share his concerns. Clearly, a fixed and precise timetable is difficult to legislate for. It will depend on the board, which will in many ways determine the pace of progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Production of statistics

Vincent Cable: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in clause 18, page 8, line 15, leave out “itself”.
This might be a purely semantic grappling point that need not detain us for long. However, I was struck by the fact that, throughout, the Bill makes reference to, “the board may”, or “the board must”, or “the board shall”, or “the board is”, but suddenly the parliamentary draftsman got excited and wrote, the “board may itself produce”. It may just be purely a coincidence and a case of the parliamentary draftsman getting a bit bored and feeling the need for a little variety, but it seems rather pointless. If there should be any point of emphasis, this is probably not the place to put it. The thrust of the Bill is that the board will be responsible not just for oversight but for production of statistics. As has been explained, that will operate through Chinese walls and it will be the National Statistician who carries out the production. So this is a very odd place to emphasise the board’s role.
On that probably extremely pedantic little point of redrafting, perhaps we might achieve some results with the Government on this issue, and I ask the Minister whether he will ask the parliamentary draftsman to think again.

John Healey: All the scrutiny to which the Committee is subjecting the Bill is important, and I would not brand it as pedantic in any respect.
I am not sure that the amendment would make a significant difference to the clause, although I would say that it would make it a little less clear, rather than clearer. The intention behind the drafting of this particular point in the clause is to make it clear that, unlike the preceding clauses, it is about statistics that the board produces rather than the statistics produced by other organisations, such as Departments, which the board monitors. I think that the wording in the Bill probably helps to preserve that clarity, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press the matter to a vote.

David Gauke: Will the Minister give way?

Rob Marris: Will the Minister give way?

John Healey: I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West wishes to intervene on that point, but I shall give way first to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire.

David Gauke: One explanation is that perhaps the parliamentary draftsman shared the surprise of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and other observers that the board itself has a role both in scrutinising and in producing statistics.

John Healey: I am not sure whether Mrs. Gauke has been studying the detailed provisions of the Bill, but that is an interesting thesis.

Rob Marris: I know that we do not wish to be detained too much on this, but can my hon. Friend perhaps say why the word “itself” does not appear in subsection (2), making it read, “The Board may itself at any time publish”? If he is right that the inclusion of “itself” in subsection (1) leads to greater emphasis and greater clarity, surely that greater emphasis and greater clarity—which I must say to him that I doubt—would also be needed in subsection (2).

John Healey: I am slightly surprised by my hon. Friend. As I have explained, in subsection (1), clearly the emphasis on “itself” is to try to make clear the distinction between statistics produced elsewhere and statistics produced under the aegis of the board, in other words by the current Office for National Statistics. Clearly the publication of information or advice given regarding statistics produced under subsection (1) does not require that construction in order to give the board the freedom and the remit to do so.
 Dr. Cable rose—

John Butterfill: Order. Before I call Dr. Cable, I would like to remind hon. Members that it is unusual for amendments that have been grouped to be selected for a separate Division, as happened in the last grouping. Members should indicate during their remarks if they wish to have a separate Division on a grouped amendment, which may then be moved formally. The Member moving the lead amendment should also be clear in winding up as to whether they wish to withdraw or press the amendment.

Vincent Cable: Thank you for that advice, Mr. Olner. I think that my English grammar is a bit better than my knowledge of parliamentary procedure, so I will persist with the point that I am trying to make.
I would have thought that the Government might have rolled over easily on this issue, but I can see that one should never assume anything. If it is the Government’s intention to do what the Minister wants, surely the sentence should read, “The Board may produce and publish its own statistics”. Is that not the point that he is trying to make? Surely, if we are in the business of trying to improve the language, that would be the way to do it.

Alun Michael: Would the words that the hon. Gentleman has just used imply that the board could then publish only statistics that it owned?

Vincent Cable: Indeed, that might create problems of its own. I should not indulge in improvised drafting, but the drafting as it stands certainly does not achieve the objective that the Minister said it was designed to achieve. I have no intention of pushing the amendment to a vote, as the issue is not a major point of substance and policy, but the Government should perhaps be a little flexible and think again.

Stewart Hosie: If the hon. Gentleman reads the whole clause again, he may find the Financial Secretary a little more forthcoming. The clause says:
“The Board may itself produce and publish statistics relating to any matter”,
and so on. It then says that the board cannot do that for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland without consent, but no consent is required by the Treasury for the board to produce statistics on any other matter, including economic matters. With that pointed out, the Financial Secretary might look a little more kindly on redrafting the clause.

Vincent Cable: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe Bill.

Theresa Villiers: The clause provides a welcome opportunity to address matters relating to devolution and the problems that have arisen from the fragmentation of statistics across the UK. The reason for that is the fact that subsections (3) to (5) place limits on the board’s activities in relation to so-called devolved statistics, to which the hon. Member for Dundee, East just referred.
The Opposition made it plain earlier that we believe that the functions set out in the clause should be those of the National Statistician and not the board. We have debated that at length already and we do not need to go back over the groundwork. However, just to reprise that, it would be useful if the Minister could clarify whether “board” in the clause is taken to include what is now the ONS. That is important in addressing the devolution issues, because under the clause it seems as if the ONS will be prevented from producing so-called devolved statistics without the permission of the relevant devolved Administration. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I have misinterpreted it, but that seems to be how the clause works.
That looks like an element of political control, which goes against the thrust of giving independence to statistical services and to the board. If a Minister in a devolved Administration felt, for example, that a statistic might expose policy failures on their part, the clause would presumably enable him or her to bar the ONS from collecting it. There seems to be no comparable restriction for English statistics. The clause seems to involve a reduced level of independence for statistics relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification of whether I have understood the clause correctly, and if so, of what the justification for that is.
Another potential undesirable consequence of subsections (3) to (5) is the further fragmentation of statistics across the UK, which leads to the general issue that I should like to address. The proposed application of the new framework across the devolved Administrations is welcome—it is right that the areas where government is devolved should produce statistics that reflect their own local circumstances and meet the needs of local users—but as the Treasury Committee pointed out:
“Equally important...is that the basic data which is needed at UK level is capable of being compiled in a coherent form across the administrations, in order to ensure that there is a set of UK-wide numbers, that this allows users to compare and contrast the impact of policies in different parts of the UK”.
Many expressed concern during the consultation that it was becoming more and more difficult to obtain statistical data that covered the whole of the UK. That fragmentation of statistics makes it more difficult to assess the effects of devolution. Simon Briscoe, statistics editor of the Financial Times, put the problem as follows in his evidence to the Treasury Committee:
“Where there are policy areas that a devolved assembly has decided to take a different policy stance, say Scotland from England, I think it is a shame that we do not have harmonised data so that we can actually see what the impact of the different policies are. If we cannot see the results of that little bit of experimentation, then nobody is going to be any the wiser about which policies were best.”
An inability to compare figures across the country on issues as significant as health, housing and poverty makes it more difficult to develop coherent evidence-based policies and programmes to tackle them. As the Treasury Committee pointed out, difficulties in producing consistent UK-wide statistics could also jeopardise the UK’s ability to meet its international obligations on statistics. The Royal Statistical Society described the problem as “serious and worsening”.
 The evidence seems to suggest that the problem did not start with devolution but may have been intensified or brought into sharper focus by that process. Particular concern has been expressed by the Statistics User Forum, which described the lack of coherent UK-wide statistics as
“a long-standing problem that is not improving. It is a major source of frustration for professional users and confusion for non-professional users.”
The forum’s chairman, Mr. Keith Dugmore, pointed out to the Treasury Committee that locations about which it is difficult to obtain data might lose out on inward investment as companies opt for areas where they can easily get hold of the information that they want. He expressed the user community’s frustration when he said:
“There are people out there who are the actual customers and users of statistics saying, ‘Why on earth can I not grab the same thing for Northern Ireland as I can for Devon and Cornwall or wherever?’”
He pointed out that the compilation of different indices of deprivation in different areas of the country meant that one could not, for example, determine whether poverty was more serious in Glasgow or in the east end of London.
Those anxieties were echoed recently by Dr. Kadhem Jallab, head of Tyne and Wear Research and Information. In consultation during the run-up to the Bill, he said:
“Devolution obviously risks further disintegration of comparability...The index of deprivation in England is not directly comparable with that in Scotland. These effects make the comparison of Tyne and Wear with Glasgow and Edinburgh impossible.”
 Dr. Jallab went on to note that work on housing market areas in the north-east based on migration patterns from the census had been compromised by the different approaches taken on census statistics in Scotland and England.
Particular problems arose in relation to the 2001 census. I refer again to Simon Briscoe’s evidence to the Treasury Committee. He felt that the ONS had been so enfeebled by the 2001 process that it had managed to produce only a limited set of UK-wide figures. For other census data, users had to
“fumble around on three different websites to try and cobble together a figure for the UK”.
Alison Macfarlane, professor of perinatal health at City university, told the Committee how she tried to produce figures for what she described as a very basic set of maternity indicators. She said:
“I had gone round the houses liaising with people in four countries and sent in data derived from 18 separate data sets. Even then, there were a number of holes.”
Professor Macfarlane called for the ONS to have a much stronger co-ordinating role.
It seems that at present there is a political imbalance. The pull from devolved Administrations to localise the census is stronger than the counterweight of a few statisticians in London who want a consistent approach across the country. The chairman of the RSS’s national statistics working party, John Pullinger, who was heavily involved in the 2001 census, described how such problems arose:
“A census is clearly a very sensitive topic. The Scottish Parliament decided to make some changes. That was not in itself a problem, but when the Welsh Assembly saw that the Scottish Parliament had made some changes, they wanted some changes, and the thing began to fragment because the forces pulling it apart were stronger than Pullinger sitting in a room in Whitehall with his counterparts. They were stronger and we were unable to pull it together, so in fact we had three different censuses.”
Mr. Pullinger identified a key problem for this Committee to consider. We clearly need to produce a common core of statistics across the UK. The question is how to provide the counterweight to the natural pull away from the centre. How can we give the board or the National Statistician the authority to provide it?
I remind the Minister that he still has a chance to change his mind and vote in favour of amendment No. 98 to give the National Statistician a formal duty to promote consistency of statistics across the UK. We have debated it but are yet to vote on it, and I hope we will have a chance to do so. That would have provided an important boost to the authority of the National Statistician.

Alun Michael: I am trying to follow the hon. Lady’s logic, but she is rattling through the briefing in front of her. She seems to be talking about a tension between consistency of national statistics and issues that are of interest in a devolved system. I would point out that in some circumstances there may be devolved interest in the regions of England, as well as in Wales or Scotland. However, does the hon. Lady not realise that information about use of the Welsh language and such matters gained through the census is extremely important, not only for the National Assembly for Wales, but for local authorities in Wales? Does she not accept that there needs to be, not a tension or conflict between central consistency and devolved Administrations, but a complementarity of information that respects the differences within the United Kingdom? That is part of the way in which we maintain its unity.

Theresa Villiers: I agree that the ideal is to have complementary statistics. Nothing that I have said should be taken to indicate that the devolved Administrations or organisations within areas that have devolved government should not be producing their own statistics on certain matters. However, it is important to have a core of statistics that are compiled in the same way across the United Kingdom. Otherwise, it will be difficult to compare different local areas, which will lose out as a result.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady suggests that they should produce their own statistics, but it would be a complete nonsense when the census is going on for the sort of information that, for example, the Welsh Assembly and local government in Wales require not to be collected as part of that process. It would be a ridiculous waste of money not to deal with it in the way that Members of this House have argued: by a simple complementarity of information that is collected.

Theresa Villiers: I agree that it is important not to have centralisation across the board. There is no reason that collection cannot take place in parallel where local statistics are collected alongside national statistics. However, that does not detract from the importance of securing at least a series of core indicators with which one can compare policies and situations in different parts of the United Kingdom according to the same criteria.

Rob Marris: Given the content of clause 18(1), is the hon. Lady speaking in favour of the clause standing part of the Bill?

Theresa Villiers: I am using the opportunity to explore concerns in relation to devolution. I do not anticipate that the Opposition will choose to vote against clause 18 standing part, but it was important to air the arguments, because they are of concern.

Alun Michael: Perhaps the hon. Lady can help us by putting her brief on one side and giving us just the Janet and John version. What is she asking for?

Theresa Villiers: I am asking for recognition of the importance of having a core set of statistics that are consistent across the United Kingdom.

Stewart Hosie: I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, and I have some sympathy. Does she want us to be able to measure accurately, for example, public spending per head between the various regions of England and parts of Scotland? Is that the sort of thing that she wants?

Theresa Villiers: I can see that there would be advantages in having consistent statistics to give an indication of levels of spending in different parts of the country.

Stewart Hosie: That is interesting, and the hon. Lady is asking for a uniform set of statistics to measure it. Water in Scotland is in the public sector, while water in England is in the private sector; although water supply is fully funded by the taxpayer through the bills, it is deemed to be public expenditure in England but not in Scotland. There is a massive disparity in public sector accounts of spending per head on that basis alone. How does one collect uniform statistics that give a meaningful comparison given those different systems?

Theresa Villiers: It will not be possible to collect uniform statistics on everything throughout the United Kingdom, and it is not necessary to do so. However, there should be a core of statistics that, I hope, is consistent across the United Kingdom.

Alun Michael: I must tell the hon. Lady that if Janet and John were reading the book, they would still be confused about her request. I have heard nobody suggest that there should not be a core of statistics enabling comparisons from region to region, country to country and so on. However, does she suggest that in the interests of the centralised consistency that she seeks, we should collect statistics on the speaking of Welsh in north-east England? It might be interesting, but the resources would not be well devoted to that.

Theresa Villiers: No, I am not saying that. As I have said on several occasions, statistics that are relevant to some areas of the United Kingdom will not be relevant to others. I do not believe that the issue is controversial for the parties. The Minister recognises the importance of dealing with the problem of the fragmentation of statistics. That is why he has worked hard to bring the devolved Administrations into the new framework.
 I hope that the Bill will help to remedy the problems to which I have adverted. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance that the Bill will tackle fragmentation to ensure that we can compare poverty levels in Glasgow, in Tyne and Wear and in the east end of London, for example. That is an important function of our statistical services, and that is why it is important that the Bill reduces fragmentation and ensures that there is consistency between key statistics throughout the United Kingdom.

Stewart Hosie: I happen to agree with the hon. Lady about the fragmentation of what I call British statistics, at least in so far as ensuring their quality, accuracy and completeness, which is uniformly first class throughout all statistics produced by the nations, the provinces and the UK as a whole. It is also correct that there must be UK data, not least to fulfil international obligations. However, there must not and there cannot be uniformity for the sake of it. Should a devolved Administration require statistics in a form that they define, it would be a matter for them alone, so long as the statistics, official or national, fulfilled all other criteria set by the board, particularly on quality, completeness and on-time delivery.
The hon. Lady suggested that a devolved Administration may restrict or stop the calculation of a statistic that shows them in a poor light. However, given the absence of accurate data, particularly economic data, not only in the UK, England and parts of England, but in Scotland, it is far more likely that the Administration would seek to commission the information that they required. The information that they may not consent to is information or statistics that they presumably do not consider necessary to set policy priorities, to measure the success or failure of policies and so on.
 We know from previous sittings that the Treasury controls the appointment to and size of the board, and that the Treasury can restrict the board’s direction in the case of failure, which we will come to. The Treasury can also restrict the disclosure of information to and from the board, particularly if the devolved Administrations request or demand it. The clause is a useful safeguard to ensure that Administrations cannot have foisted upon them information that they consider to be of no value. However, the provision relates only to fully devolved statistics. State-wide statistics, which the hon. Lady wants for the purposes of comparison, will of course be provided because they are UK statistics.
I am not sure what we heard from the hon. Lady, but the clause offers a degree of protection against Administrations becoming burdened with statistics for which they have little or no use. Other clauses allow them to direct the production of statistics that they need. The hon. Lady’s fears are unfounded. Given the Treasury’s command and control of other parts of the process, which we have discussed, I would have thought that she would have been delighted to see that at least one part of the process is fully in the control of the Assembly in Wales, the Parliament in Scotland and the Administration in Northern Ireland.

Brian H Donohoe: With regard to the Scottish Parliament, if the board were to produce statistics that showed taxpayers south of the border that the Barnett formula was favourable to those north of the border, would the hon. Gentleman want to expose that to scrutiny?

Stewart Hosie: I am not sure why any politician would not like scrutiny of the facts. I would be delighted for a statistic to show what we already know, which is that the Barnett squeeze is reducing the amount of money per head in Scotland, year on year.

John Butterfill: Order. Stick to the Bill, please.

Stewart Hosie: I am being admonished, but I was teased into it by the hon. Gentleman. [ Interruption.] Well, it was such an easy target.
The clause is to be welcomed, because it allows the devolved Administrations at least a little control, if only in stopping unnecessary demands for unnecessary statistics and freeing up more time for the statisticians, the board and others to provide new information that is needed.

John Healey: The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet used the opportunity given by the discussion of the clause to register a few concerns about the nature of devolved statistics and comparability across the United Kingdom, and she was right to do so. We share her concerns, which was clear from the consultation and the way in which we framed the Bill. The decision of the devolved Administrations to participate fully in the provisions of the Bill goes some way to addressing those concerns.
Under the devolution settlement, devolved Administrations have responsibility for devolved matters such as education, health and local economic development. That includes the production of statistics relating to those matters, such as statistics on pupil numbers, cancer operations and local planning applications. Devolved statistical production predates by some way the devolution settlement and Simon Briscoe’s comments in the Financial Times. Wales, Northern Ireland and particularly Scotland have different legal, political and education systems, which leads to the production of relevant statistics. That has meant that direct comparability in those areas has been difficult for some time.
Given the devolution settlement and our determination not to open it up wider with this Bill, it is right that the Board should obtain the consent of the relevant devolved Administrations to produce statistics on devolved matters. The clause allows the board to produce and publish statistics on any UK matter. It is important that the board should continue to do so, not least because we are concerned to aid the coherence of UK statistics, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet is. The Office for National Statistics compendium “Social Trends”covers both devolved and non-devolved statistics to give a definitive overview of the United Kingdom. Where it impinges on devolved statistics, it is right that consent is obtained from the Administrations.
The hon. Lady cited some of the technical and practical difficulties that analysts and researchers had in bringing together statistics from devolved sources. Those concerns were raised during the consultation, and we are as keen as she is to deal with that issue. She urged me to confirm, as I think I already have, that I believe that the Bill will be helpful because the devolved Administrations have decided to participate fully. That means that the board will have a responsibility in its remit to monitor and report on statistics in the devolved Administrations.
As I have said, the Government are committed to working with the devolved Administrations to review what is already in place as non-legislative agreements, including the formal concordat to try to improve the degree of consistency and coherence. I hope that this brief debate has been useful to the hon. Lady and that she will agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Retail prices index

Theresa Villiers: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in clause 19, page 8, line 37, leave out ‘the consent’ and insert ‘consulting’.
I tabled this probing amendment to explore the transfer of further power over the retail prices index from the Chancellor to the board. The progress in the direction of transferring power is welcome, but it would be useful for the Committee to consider whether the powers that are retained by the Chancellor under clause 19 are necessary. We want to probe the Government’s reasons for retaining the Chancellor’s power to veto measures that constitute a fundamental change in the RPI, which would be materially detrimental to the interests of the relevant index-linked gilt-edged securities.
Clearly, one has to approach the matter with great caution. The Library note on the Bill tells us that the eight gilts relevant to our discussion have an outstanding value of some £90.8 billion. Of course, the Opposition would not wish any measure to be put in place that would require the Government suddenly and unexpectedly to have to repay £90.8 billion, because that would cause significant problems in terms of the public finances and market volatility, but the question arises whether the retention of the Chancellor’s veto in this context is necessary to prevent the risk from materialising. That is why I tabled the amendment, which would essentially transform the Chancellor’s power to veto a proposed change into a right merely to be consulted about the change after a decision has been made by the Bank of England and the board.
The thrust of the reform that the Government say that they wish to make involves trusting the board and the National Statistician to make hugely important, sensitive decisions that determine the flow of millions of pounds in capital markets every day. If they can be trusted to make other key decisions about the definition of crucial economic indices, we are interested to hear more from the Government about why they feel that those people cannot be trusted in total to make the decisions on the retail prices index. The Royal Statistical Society, for example, has said that given the importance of the RPI it is crucial to remove it from political control. We have at least to consider the arguments to see whether the transfer of power from the Chancellor to the board should be total.
If the amendment were made, there would still be a triple safeguard to prevent an irresponsible decision that would trigger automatic redemption from being made. Not only would the board have to be convinced that the change was needed, but the Bank of England would have to give its view of whether the proposal would constitute a fundamental change. Of course, the Chancellor would also have to be consulted.
The Treasury Committee has considered the matter over a number of years and it could find no other country in the world where the Executive retained control over definitional matters in relation to the inflation index. We should like the Government to give further justification for why they wish to make an exception, albeit one that is now more limited than in the past, because the Chancellor’s continuing role involves an exception—albeit one more limited in scope than previously. The concern is particularly significant in a month when inflation has climbed to its highest level for 15 years. At a time of rising inflation it is more important than ever to take measures to rebuild the credibility of inflation indices, which many now worry do not reflect the real cost of living. Given the pivotal importance of inflation for economic stability and policy and for families, there is surely an argument that the independent structures being set up in the Bill should take over full responsibility for the definition of the RPI and its derivatives.

Celia Barlow: The hon. Lady mentioned the necessity of a safeguard. Would it not be more appropriate if that safeguard were the Chancellor acting as an arbiter between the board and the Bank, given that that has been his traditional responsibility and index-linked gilts are part of our national borrowing?

Theresa Villiers: There are arguments on both sides of the debate, which is why the amendment is probing. One of our concerns is that the Chancellor’s role in relation to the Bank of England is not necessarily transparent and his continued involvement could jeopardise public trust. When decisions are taken on changes to the methodology of the RPI, people could suspect political motivation even when there is none. I shall come on to that point in more detail.
 The Treasury Committee first called for the removal of the Chancellor’s powers in relation to the RPI in 1998 and it set out its concerns in three reports—in 1998, 2000 and July 2006. The move to answer the Committee’s concern has been slow in coming. Clear tensions have emerged in the current RPI regime, which splits responsibility between the National Statistician and the Chancellor. Under the current rules, the National Statistician is responsible for the methodology used to compile the index, while the Chancellor covers its scope and definition.
That split responsibility caused concern when a move was made in February 2004 to incorporate hedonic regression methods of quality adjustment for a limited set of goods. It was intended to adjust more accurately for the impact of quality changes in the price of certain foods. There was a problem with communication, which again goes to the issue of trust. The ONS covered the matter briefly in its standard monthly press release; on the same day the Treasury issued a press release announcing that the National Statistician had made changes to the methodology of the RPI and that the Bank of England had indicated that they did not represent a fundamental change to the index. The debt management office had given holders of gilts early warning of the prospective changes, but that did not seem to filter through to a wider audience. The Statistics Commission criticised the way in which the news was disclosed and said that the ONS should have issued a separate press release to warn people of the changes and separate the decision from the Chancellor.
Such problems will clearly be mitigated by clause 11, but similar communication difficulties might arise in relation to the residual functions that the clause leaves with the Chancellor. There is an important lesson on credibility to be learned from the hedonics controversy. In examining it, the Statistics Commission noted that disquiet had been expressed that the change had been politically motivated, which was the problem I referred to in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Hove. The commission noted that there had been speculation whether the developments flowing from the shift to hedonics had been released in small packages to avoid triggering gilt redemption clauses.
I must make it clear that the commission concluded that the changes were not politically motivated and that they were objectively justifiable, but that the Chancellor’s continuing role had led some to look for political motives behind the change. It concluded that more transparency and information was required to reassure the public about the governance of the RPI. It went on to state:
“We believe that there is a strong case for going further than this and looking again at the Chancellor’s special role in respect of the RPI.
The Commission is not persuaded that there is public benefit in treating the RPI differently from other key statistics.
We believe that this tends to undermine confidence that the construction of the index is handled in an impartial way.
It is therefore also likely to have presentational disadvantages through the suspicion it engenders.
In short, the current arrangements create the worst of all possible outcomes.”
What concerns me—I would like to hear the Minister’s views—is the suspicion that changes to the index are politically motivated. That suspicion was identified by the commission as a source of concern and it could persist, even with the limited powers retained by the Chancellor.
The suspicion could be fuelled by the position of the RPI advisory committee. For many years, that committee of learned experts played a role as a guardian of the RPI. The committee provided a degree of transparency and independence in a system where the Chancellor had a unique role in relation to a hugely important index. However, that transparency has been lost since the current Chancellor took over at No. 11 because the committee has not met. It can only be convened at the request of the Chancellor and he has chosen not to do so.
That is one of the reasons why disquiet has been and continues to be expressed at the Chancellor’s role in relation to RPI, even if the changes go through. It would be interesting to hear the Minister confirm that the committee has not met since 1994, and it would be useful if he clarified whether he envisages a continuing role for the committee in dealing with the problems and the concerns about the Chancellor’s role in relation to RPI. Will it continue, for example, as an adviser to the board or the National Statistician, rather than to the Chancellor?
In conclusion, the Committee will be well aware that even the smallest changes to the index can save the Chancellor many millions of pounds in benefit and interest payments. It is vital that we get the RPI arrangements absolutely right, which is why the Opposition are seeking a degree of further clarification from the Minister about how the residual powers retained for the Chancellor will work and how they can be justified.

John Butterfill: Before I call Rob Marris, for the convenience of Members it may be helpful to say that I do not allow to intend a separate debate on clause stand part. Members wishing to speak on this subject may therefore want to join the debate on amendment No. 150.

Rob Marris: Were the amendment not a probing one, I would certainly urge my colleagues to vote against it if it were to be pressed. On a minor level, it is not properly worded because it should have removed the word “of” as well, but on a more major level, the amendment is completely potty. It is potty for some of the reasons adverted to, but not made absolutely clear by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet in a very long speech. The matter dates back to about the year of the hon. Lady’s birth. Many older members of the Committee will remember, during the run on the pound and subsequent devaluation in 1967, the phrase used by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson: “the gnomes of Zurich”. As a result, legislation was passed in 1968 for index-linked gilts. The index linking is important and it carried on until 2002.
 Labour Members, if not Opposition Members, will remember that the under the Conservative Governments who were in office for two thirds of the period between the passing of the 1968 Act and the changes of 2002, and in particular under the Government of John Major, the national debt doubled. Under the present Government, until very recently, we have been paying it off. The national debt is considerably lower than the one we inherited in 1997, and unlike the situation under the Conservative Government, we have something to show for it.
 What would happen if the amendment were to be passed? It would take the matter of redemption out of the hands of any Government. The hon. Lady adverted to one point but did not make it entirely clear. At this point, I shall refer to the explanatory notes, which will please all hon. Members. Stockholders, if there is a change in the RPI calculation, have the right to require the Government to redeem the stock. That is the£90 billion in the Library note to which the hon. Lady referred. That could happen overnight under the terms of those gilts, and it would have, as the explanatory notes put it:
“a significant impact on financial markets and potentially on public finances.”
If 90 billion quid became repayable by the Treasury overnight, it would have to rush off to the money markets to try to borrow another £90 billion, which would cause chaos and be most undesirable. That is why, as the Bill is worded and in contradistinction to the amendment, and because of the delicate nature of that power and the overhang from previous years of Conservative borrowing, it leaves the matter ultimately with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Given that the stocks are due for redemption between 2009 and 2030 and that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) hopes—vainly—to be Chancellor of the Exchequer during that period, I say to the hon. Lady that I suspect her hon. Friend would be absolutely horrified if such an amendment was accepted.

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman refers to the point at which the relevant securities will be redeemed. Is there an argument for some kind of limitation on the Chancellor’s residual role, to ensure that it comes to an end when the relevant gilts are no longer in existence?

Rob Marris: That could be, but it is not until 2030. Few here today will still be Members of the House then.

Theresa Villiers: We should bear in mind that statistics Bills come round only once every 60 years.

Rob Marris: They may come round more frequently, as all good things do, under a Labour Government.
It goes on to 2030; we do not need to worry about introducing a sunset clause. It would be completely potty if the amendment were to get anywhere near causing a vote, and I suspect that the shadow Chancellor would agree.

Vincent Cable: I do not want to speak to the amendment; I have a question about the clause. It may stem from ignorance on my part. I can understand why it is important to have a clause on the index of inflation; it is probably the most crucial of all economic indicators. It links to so many other things, including benefit indexation and index-linked gilts.
My question relates to the fact that we have two measures of inflation—the CPI and the RPI. The CPI is no less important because it is the indicator that the Bank of England uses when setting interest rates. It is therefore just as important as the RPI. Why is there no comparable statement of the process safeguarding the integrity and the independence of CPI calculations? The answer in part is that the CPI is a European index, and people no doubt place their trust in the Commission as the ultimate repository of statistical honesty, and we do not need a European index to be embodied in British legislation.
However, it is a practical point. The CPI is currently being reviewed in order to take account of the fact that it does not capture housing costs. There is some discussion about the fact that the CPI might be adapted separately for the UK in order to capture housing costs ahead of any change made by EUROSTAT. Who safeguards the process by which the CPI, as well as the RPI, is compiled? Has it been omitted from legislation for good reasons or simply because no one thought it was necessary to do so? It is not a challenge to the provisions of the clause; it is simply a question about the thinking behind its drafting.

John Healey: Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet for the welcome that she gave to the Chancellor’s transferring his essential powers over the RPI to the board. I know that the Treasury Committee and others have followed it closely and encouraged my right hon. Friend to do so for some time. I am glad that we can do so. We will have the right provisions to protect essential public finance interests and the stability of the financial markets, as I shall explain later.
Essentially, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet invites me to explain the peculiarity of the UK’s debt market, which lies behind the role that we propose for the Chancellor. As the Committee knows, all giltsare issued under a prospectus, and in the UK the prospectus of certain index-linked gilts contains the right for the holders of those gilts to redeem them early at par, or face value, under certain circumstances relating to changes in the construction of the retail prices index.
The hon. Lady said that it seems that no other country has such provisions as those that we propose. That is because the prospectuses for index-linked gilts issued in other countries do not contain the obligation for the Governments of those countries to redeem those gilts in such specific circumstances.
Were the clause to be triggered at a time when gilts were trading below face value, there could be real and severe consequences to the financial and debt markets and to public finances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has pointed out. That is why clause 19 provides that before the board makes any changes to the RPI it must consult not the Chancellor but the Bank of England about whether the change constitutes a fundamental change in the index that would be materially detrimental to the interests of the holders of the relevant index-linked gilts—in other words, whether it is likely to trigger the clause in those prospectuses. If, and only if, the Bank of England is of the opinion that the change would be materially detrimental, the board must obtain the Chancellor’s consent to that change. Should the Bank determine that the change is not fundamental or materially detrimental to the holders of certain index-linked gilts, the Chancellor will play no part in making any proposed changes.
The hon. Lady’s amendment proposes that in the narrow and specifically defined circumstances that I have just mentioned, consultation with the Chancellor would be required rather than consent. I do not accept the amendment—I hope that she will accept my argument—because it does not provide adequate protection against the possible consequences for the public finances or the severe disruption of an orderly gilts and wider financial market.
I want to give an indication of the scale of the potential consequences. This is hypothetical, but nevertheless we might find circumstances in which it could be the case. If the Government had to redeem the index-linked gilts, that would lead to large-scale refinancing of up to £91 billion of additional and unplanned gilts. To put that in perspective, it is three times the average annual gilt issue, which stands at about £31 billion. There could also be real fiscal costs, as the hon. Lady will appreciate, principally because it is likely that new gilts would need to be issued at higher yields than those being replaced. That could lead, we calculate, to additional fiscal costs of up to an average of £0.9 billion a year for the financial years through to 2030-31. That is why it is crucial that the Chancellor, as the Minister who is democratically accountable in the end for public finances, retains the ability to prevent such a potentially costly event. Its possible impact under the circumstances set out in the Bill is on the public finances and the financial markets, not on statistics. It is right, therefore, that the Chancellor should make the final decision rather than the board.
That is not to say that we would expect the role of the Chancellor to be triggered. The Bank of England has not assessed any of the changes to the RPI since 1997 as fundamental and materially detrimental to the holders of the relevant index-linked gilts. Accordingly, even if the provision had been in place since 1997, the Chancellor’s role would never have been triggered.
There was an exchange between the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about the use of a sunset clause. Although there is not a sunset clause in clause 19, all the gilts to which it refers are due to expire in 2030 so there is de facto an automatic end to the point at which the Chancellor’s role and consent would be required. In relation to the question posed by the hon. Member for Twickenham, it is necessary to have a clause not because the RPI is somehow a statistic that is first among equals and more important than the others but because of the matter of redemption rights in certain index-linked gilts that attach specifically to the retail prices index. That is the purpose of the clause and the reason for it and the safeguards. The hon. Lady said that this is a probing amendment. I hope that she has probed far enough and will accept the unamended clause.

Theresa Villiers: The Minister’s comments are useful, as was this discussion. I do not propose to press the amendments to a vote, but I emphasise that the RPI advisory committee could play an important role in enhancing transparency in this whole process, and I remind the Minister of my comments on that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Statistical services

Question proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe Bill.

John Healey: Clauses 20 and 21 are important because they enable the board to undertake valuable activities, currently undertaken by the ONS, that are generally and necessarily widely known. Clause 20 allows the board to provide the range of services that the ONS currently provides. For example, it will be able to provide
“information, advice and technical assistance”
to outside bodies, including statistical agencies in developing countries. Under the clause, the board will also be able to undertake valuable statistical surveys and analyses on behalf of others as the ONS currently does.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 21 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Reports

Vincent Cable: I beg to move amendment No. 89, page 10, line 25, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenientto discuss the following amendments: No. 201, page 10, line 25, leave out ‘any or all’ and insert ‘one or more’.
No. 90, page 10, line 31, leave out ‘as soon as possible thereafter’ and insert ‘concurrently’.

Vincent Cable: With our amendment, we are once again having a gentle tilt at the parliamentary draftsmen, but the amendment is wholly uncontroversial and I hope that the Government will help us with it. Clause 25 concerns the board’s function in reporting to Parliament. Subsections (1) and (2) set out the procedure for annual reporting, and state that the board “must” produce an annual report and lay it before Parliament and the devolved Assemblies. Subsections (3) and (4) then state, for no obvious reason, that it “may” undertake other reports on matters relating to the exercise of its functions, and leave it open as to whether any such report should be laid before Parliament and the devolved Assemblies. That prompts the question as to what they are preparing such reports for—in a vacuum for their own amusement, perhaps.
The clause is about embedding the reports of the board in parliamentary accountability. What we suggest—changing “may” to “must”—is meant as a drafting improvement. It is certainly intended in that spirit, and I hope that the Minister will take it as such.

John Healey: I have already discussed amendments Nos. 89 and 201 with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for raising this matter and for his constructive approach. Under the present drafting of the Bill, reports produced under clause 25(1) must be laid before Parliament and the devolved legislatures. In contrast, under clause 25(3), the board has only an option of laying discretionary reports before Parliament or the devolved legislatures. Looking at the matter, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Twickenham. If the board produces a report under subsection (3) about a matter relating to the exercise of its functions, it must lay the report before one or more of Parliament or the devolved legislatures. That is entirely consistent with the Government’s desire for parliamentary scrutiny to be at the heart of the new arrangements. I will be happy to accept amendments Nos. 89 and 201.

Vincent Cable: That is quite overwhelming. In 10 years of dealing with financial, immigration, asylum and benefits legislation in the House, this is the first time that an amendment I have tabled has been accepted. I will add the experience to my CV. I do not know what the courtesies are—perhaps I should send a bunch of flowers or a case of wine to the Treasury. Whatever is required, I appreciate the Minister’s flexibility of mind, and I am glad that we are proceeding on it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 201, page 10, line 25, leave out ‘any or all’ and insert ‘one or more’.—[Dr. Cable.]

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part ofthe Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Directions

Stewart Hosie: I beg to move amendment No. 7, page 11, line 13, leave out ‘, with the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,’.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, page 11, line 39, leave out subsection (9).
No. 9, in clause 45, page 21, line 4, leave out subsection (7).
No. 10, in clause 45, page 21, line 7, leave out ‘and the Treasury’.
No. 11, in clause 49, page 24, line 16, leave out subsection (7).
No. 12, in clause 49, page 24, line 19, leave out ‘and the Treasury’.

Stewart Hosie: Clause 27 gives the Chancellor of the Exchequer powers to direct the board if it has failed to comply with its objectives or perform any of its functions, placing the office at the heart of the process when things go wrong, which hopefully will be very infrequently. Clause 27(2), (3) and (4) appear to give Scottish and Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel, the same powers but, of course, it is not quite the same. Paragraph 116 of the explanatory notes states that devolved Administrations will have powers in “a similar manner”, but not exactly the same powers.
 The territorial appointments discussed in a previous sitting are not actually made by the devolved Administrations but by the Treasury following consultations. Scottish Ministers cannot offer disclosure of information to or from the board without consent. Clause 27 operates in the same way for the measures dealing with directions when things go wrong. In a case of failure to comply or perform, the express consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not the Treasury, is required before the devolved Administrations can issue directions. I might argue that clause 27 follows a rather sad pattern of Treasury command and control of the size and composition of the board, appointments to the board and so on, but I will not make the case speaking to my amendment. I merely argue that it is completely unnecessary, not least because the direction given by Scottish Ministers in clause 27(2) relates only to Scottish devolved statistics, something in which the Chancellor has, or should have, no locus whatever. My amendments would remove the requirement for the Chancellor’s consent in subsection (2), and subsection (9), which is the catch-all measure that would stop Scottish Ministers exercising the functions of the board in the case of its failure to comply other than with the direct consent of the Chancellor.
I tabled the amendments because the powers given to the Scottish Ministers, even with consent, relate only to devolved statistics, so UK Treasury consent should be wholly unnecessary.
I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 9 to 12. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 to clause 45 would remove the requirement for Treasury consent before Scottish Ministers can authorise the disclosure of information to the board. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to clause 49 would remove the same requirement before Scottish Ministers can authorise the disclosure by the board. As with amendments Nos. 7 and 8, the proposals are unnecessary as clause 45 applies only to Scottish public authorities under the control of the Executive, and clause 49 allows information to be disclosed only to public authorities.
The clauses allow the Treasury, quite rightly in UK matters, to direct the board where there has been a failure to comply or to perform and the Treasury has the ability to authorise disclosure to and from the board to public bodies. Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Departments have a similar provision, but it still requires the consent of the Treasury. It is a parent-child relationship which many will resent. However, the key point is that the only information being discussed is devolved statistics. In terms of disclosure to and from the board it relates only to Scottish public authorities defined in the legislation.
The power of consent is completely unnecessary and I ask the Financial Secretary to look again at the issue. The Administrations in Wales and Scotland have their own mandate; they are properly elected, functioning Administrations with a Parliament and an Assembly. I hope that one day Ministers in Northern Ireland will take control again, as is specified in the documentation with the Bill.
To require Treasury consent, and in some cases specific consent from the Chancellor in order for Ministers in the devolved Administrations to do their job, is completely unnecessary. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter in a trusting way, acknowledge the mandate of these Administrations and recognise that the power of consent in the clauses is unnecessary.

John Healey: The clause has been drafted to ensure that the devolved Administrations can play a full part in the work of the statistics board and so that they can have control over matters relating to wholly devolved statistics. For statistics that are not wholly devolved, the Bill establishes an appropriate framework for interaction between the board and the relevant devolved Administrations.
In respect of amendments Nos. 7 and 8 tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee, East, the powers in clause 27 are designed to protect the public interest so that if, and only if, the board fundamentally fails to deliver, for any reason, the Government can intervene, always publicly and in writing, to ensure that the board’s obligations are met. The clause provides an important safeguard, allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the devolved Administrations to give the board such directions as are, in those circumstances, appropriate in the event of such a serious failure by the board to perform any of its functions or to comply with EU obligations.
I say this to the hon. Gentleman: it is appropriate that the Chancellor’s consent be needed for directions from Scottish Ministers. That is a last resort because a board failure might affect the position of statistics throughout the United Kingdom and so it is important that such directions be consistent. The consent will ensure that the directions are co-ordinated and that the Bill does not create any potentially conflicting powers. In addition, the resourcing of the board, in order to remedy a serious failure, will remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament, to which the Chancellor will, of course, be accountable. In such circumstances, shared accountability is important for such decisions and interventions.
We have been working closely with the Scottish Executive, as the Committee would expect, to ensure that the provisions in the Bill are appropriate to—in this case—Scotland. I can confirm that Scottish Ministers have agreed to their role in giving directions to the board in the case of a serious failure, including to the requirement for the Chancellor’s consent. The Scottish Parliament is being asked for its consent as well via the legislative consent motion currently lodged with it.
On amendments Nos. 9 to 12, we will discuss clauses on data sharing a little later. Essentially, the Bill sets out a mechanism for data sharing for statistical purposes between the board and public authorities only. The key point is that the mechanisms in clauses 45 and 49 mirror the mechanisms in other data-sharing clauses, which generally require the consent of the Treasury, as the body with residual legislative responsibility for the board, and of the Minister responsible for the other body involved in the data sharing. That will ensure that the Minister for the body disclosing data and the one responsible for the body receiving the data are both content for the regulation to be made. I see no reason why the provisions in Scotland should be any different from those applying else where. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.

Stewart Hosie: On amendments Nos. 7 and 8, I recognise that clause 27 is designed as a safeguard. I understand the argument that identified flaws might be universal and not simply relate to Scotland. However, on data sharing, which, as the Minister mentioned, we will have the opportunity to discuss in more detail later, I take issue with him when he said that the requirement is that both sides be content. That might be the intention and what is provided for in other legislation, but this Bill requires that the Treasury give consent, not that both parties be considered content with the data sharing. However, I shall not seek to press my amendments, although I might wish to return to them on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Michael Fallon: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in clause 27, page 11, line 35, at end insert
‘and a copy must be placed in the Library of each House of Parliament.’.
I think that we have established that directions under the clause are a serious matter. A failure by the board to comply with its objectives or to perform its functions would be serious and so a direction is not likely to be given lightly. In reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East, the Minister said that it is right that the remedy remain with Parliament because that is where, he hopes, due accountability will be exercised under the process. As I understand the clause, directions from the Chancellor or devolved Ministers must be in writing, but do not have to be public.
It is true that under subsection (7) a direction must be published in such a manner that the authority to which it is directed must be aware of it. However, that could mean any type of notice—a notice in the Edinburgh Gazette, for example. It could be very localised. If Parliament is to exercise its ultimate accountability functions, it must be aware of any direction made. I suppose that it is too much to hope that the Government might accept a second set of amendments, but I cannot see how he could logically oppose this one. He introduced the idea that Parliament has ultimate accountability, so I think that Parliament must be aware of directions laid under subsection (7). That is the purpose of the amendment.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman makes a useful point with his amendment. It is consistent with his intention at each stage to widen and deepen Parliament’s role in the scrutiny and accountability of the system. At this point, I cannot accept it as tabled because I would need to consider whether directions issued by Ministers in devolved Administrations might be laid publicly. If he will permit me, however, I will take away the point to consider, and I assure him that I will do so sympathetically.

Michael Fallon: I am extremely grateful—I must not sound too surprised—to the Financial Secretary for that acceptance. The amendment makes sense, but I take his point perfectly about directions made by devolved Administrations. In the spirit in which he has accepted the principle, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe Bill.

Mark Hoban: I want to push the Minister a little further. He made it clear in response to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee, East that the directions would be used rarely and in grave situations, and we recognise that. He committed to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks that he would consider a way of publicising those directions, but in the context of parliamentary scrutiny, has he given any thought to whether, given their gravity, expected rarity and importance, they should be subject to parliamentary approval through the affirmative resolution procedure to give Parliament the opportunity to hold the Executive to account for such a degree of intervention?

John Healey: I do not think that that approach would be appropriate. The clause is quite standard. It is intended to be used as a last resort when there is a serious failure to carry out the duties with which Parliament will charge the board. It may be that that failure will require rapid direction on the Chancellor’s behalf or that of Ministers in devolved Administrations. Much better than requiring a legislative response to issue such directions might be the approach that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks is encouraging us to take—ensuring that directions laid under the clause would be reported directly to Parliament or the appropriate devolved Administration.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

National Statistician: advisory functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe Bill.

Theresa Villiers: I had hoped to press for a vote on amendments Nos. 97 and 98, but because of time constraints, I will not. However, we will seek to return to the role and functions of the National Statistician on Report. For the reasons that we gave earlier, we feel that it is a flaw in the Bill that the National Statistician’s functions are insufficiently outlined. It is crucial to ensure that that role is heavyweight and has credibility and authority, which is why we will return to it.

John Healey: I am puzzled by the hon. Lady’s reference to time constraints. The Committee accepted the programme motion proposed for its sittings, and my hon. Friends and I are ready to sit for as long as it takes if she wants to keep us here. I note that she reserves her position, and I look forward to the debate if she decides to return to the matter on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Committees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe Bill.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I have a question for my hon. Friend the Minister. Is it the board’s intention to form a sub-committee specifically to consider strengthening and deepening public understanding of statistics? The concerns in all parts of the Committee about possible misuses of official statistics might be alleviated somewhat if the public had greater understanding of their purpose, how they are used and how they are collected. It is necessary to encourage people to participate in official surveys, which might be easier if the public understood why the surveys were being carried out and their importance to the policy making process.
 Like Opposition Members, I have been making international comparisons. A number of countries set a lot of store by increasing public understanding of the use of statistics, most notably Japan. There is evidence that that encourages the public to participate in Government surveys. Interestingly, there is also a national statistics day in Japan, although I am not sure whether I advocate that idea. I have not tabled an amendment, but I would be grateful for information on Report about how we might encourage the development of greater public understanding. I refer the Minister to a recent article in the Public Understanding of Science journal that makes the point that statistical misunderstandings occur and that we should attempt to tackle the problem. I would be grateful if that was done.

John Healey: My hon. Friend has obviously been doing her research. I was unaware that Japan holds a national statistics day, which is not something that I am inclined to write into the Bill, although we will bear it in mind. As she will understand, I cannot answer for the board’s intentions as she asks me to. She is right that there is widespread concern about the difficulty of maintaining high response rates to certain important surveys and that better understanding of statistics and their use may well help. I anticipate that as the board becomes established and starts to undertake its duties, it will study the points made during our proceedings and that it will want to consider the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Use of information by the Board

Alun Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 198, in clause 35, page 14, line 25, at end insert—
‘(1A) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 36, below, in determining or promoting the use of statistics the Board shall have a duty to consider the benefits to public policy of sharing information.’.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 131, in clause 36, page 14, line 37, leave out paragraphs (a)and (b).
Amendment No. 118, in clause 36, page 14, line 40, at end insert—
‘(1A) Personal information under subsection (1) shall not be used except in relation to the exercise of any of the Board’s and National Statistician’s functions.’.
Amendment No. 119, in clause 36, page 14, line 40, at end insert—
‘(1B) Personal data may be disclosed by the National Statistician under subsection (1)—
(a) to approved researchers;
(b) to other authorities for uses consistent with the functions of the Board;
(c) to the National Statistician under sections 48, 49 and 50;
(d) with the consent of the person to whom it relates;
(e) under a European Community obligation for statistical purposes; and
(f) to service providers under section 38.’.
Amendment No. 185, in clause 36, page 15, line 11, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment No. 153, in clause 36, page 15, line 12, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment No. 154, in clause 36, page 15, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 155, in clause 36, page 15, line 21, leave out paragraph (h).
Amendment No. 156, in clause 36, page 15, line 22, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment No. 199, in clause 36, page 15, line 24, at end insert
‘, whether that researcher is employed by an academic institution or by an appropriate public or non-government organisation’.
Amendment No. 157, in clause 36, page 15, line 25, leave out subsection (6).
Amendment No. 158, in clause 36, page 15, line 27, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment No. 159, in clause 36, page 15, line 30, leave out subsection (8).
Amendment No. 160, in clause 36, page 16, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 162, in clause 38, page 16, line 26, at end insert—
‘(2) In exercising its power under subsection (1) the Board must consider whether the service provider is a fit and proper person and must require that he signs a declaration, in such form as the Board may determine, that he understands the requirements of section 36 before any information is disclosed.’.
New clause 1—Disclosure of personal data—
‘Personal data, disclosed to the Board or the National Statistician and disclosed to other authorities for statistical purposes, is subject to section 36.’.

Alun Michael: On amendments Nos. 198 and 199, there is a point of principle about sharing data to provide a public benefit. On occasions, there have been problems with sharing data. Lazy bureaucrats, aided and abetted by lazy data protection advisers and lazy legal advisers, far too often respond to the possibility of sharing information with others by acting as if it were safer not to share data. They often claim that they are doing so on so-called data protection grounds, but that is wrong. They ought to follow best practice in data management, which involves balancing the benefits to sharing data with the disbenefits. I am pleased that the amendment is supported by the Association of Regional Observatories and others.
Amendment No. 199 is intended to tease out what I believe to be the intention of the drafting—that is, to ensure that access to statistics is as easy and quick as possible for those who will use them for practical purposes, such as to inform service delivery, develop local policies or analyse the needs of groups in society or local communities. That is what makes it essential for researchers in local government and in non-governmental organisations or charities to have quick and easy access, provided that they meet the criteria set out in the Bill.
Access must not be restricted to statisticians and researchers in universities when such access is vital for those who work for the betterment of the lives of those who are represented in the figures, through local authorities, charities, NGOs and other agencies. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will not only agree with me about that, but confirm that what I am saying is the correct legal interpretation of the clause. It is important for those people to have access to the statistics with the minimum of bureaucracy.
I learned of an excellent example of the value of that only today, in discussing housing complaints with representatives of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, although I did not know that it would illuminate this debate as effectively as I hope it will. Nowadays, 70 per cent. of citizens advice bureaux record their cases electronically, on a system called Case. They can quickly analyse cases by age, ethnicity, household size or income level, as well as the nature of the complaints that lead people to seek advice. Citizens advice bureaux have some 5.2 million client interfaces each year, whether on the telephone or in interviews, so the system is of significance. To meet their second aim of informing public policy, it is vital to overlie those client statistics on official statistics, to provide an accurate framework for comparison and analysis. The example of housing is an excellent one, but similar examples can also be found that inform the work of people at the local authority level in improving the quality of life for our people.
Some academics work with policy makers to improve the quality of local life. I have referred to some of them. They include Professor John Shepherd of Birkbeck college and his work on rural statistics; Professor Jonathan Shepherd at the University Hospital in Wales, whose work on reducing violence was seminal; and Professor Howard Williams, who analysed local data in the Ely area of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan).
I also acknowledge the fact that people working in the Office for National Statistics, Ministers and Treasury officials have shown real commitment to enabling us to drill down to the most local level of analysis. I hope that the Minister will assure me on both points: that that is the Government’s intention and that the capacity to use information properly to improve people’s quality of life, which will be the focus of the board’s activities, is what the Bill is intended to bring about.

Vincent Cable: There is an obvious link between clause 35 on the use of statistical information and the confidentiality provisions of clause 36. The amendments that my colleague and I have tabled relate to the confidentiality provisions. We want doubly to ensure that there is no misuse, as provided in clause 35. The key point is to be aware of the overriding purpose of statistics. The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right: both professionally and in our current jobs, we all encounter examples of pettiness and restrictiveness in the use of figures. There is often a box-ticking approach to regulation, which is not very helpful.
 We need to focus on the central objective, which is to build public confidence—both corporate and individual—in statistics. Businesses will not collaborate in giving accurate and honest information if they have any suspicion that their data will be made available to their competitors, unwittingly or otherwise. Similarly, individuals are not likely to contribute to statistical surveys, particularly in highly sensitive areas like the census, if there is any suspicion that data might be misused. We therefore take the view shared by the Royal Statistical Society and others that the confidentiality provisions of the Bill need to be sharpened, although the Bill clearly provides for some protection. We have suggested various routes in the group of amendments.
A new clause, which is brief and to the point, says that personal data disclosed to the board or National Statistician is subject to the provisions of clause 36. In other words, the use of data as described in clause 35 is subject to all the penalties and protections of clause 36. Clause 36 should be sharpened and clarified. We have suggested two amendments, amendments Nos. 118and 119, which are designed to achieve that aim, particularly via a chapeau, a phrase, that covers various groups of people by saying:
“Personal information...shall not be used except in relation to the exercise of any of the Board’s and National Statistician’s functions.”
The next amendment then defines the groups of individuals to which it would be legitimate and appropriate to release statistical information.
Like the Government, our broad objective is to show that confidentiality is protected, for public confidence reasons. There is a view, certainly in the statistical community, that the Bill could be stronger and clearer. That is why we have tabled our amendments.

Mark Hoban: I should like to speak first to amendment No. 153, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. We picked up on the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham at the outset of his remarks. The amendments are seeking to probe the nature of the clause, with a view to establishing a greater confidence in the security and confidentiality of data collected by the board for the preparation of statistics. If we are to achieve some of the benefits of the Bill—greater access to administrative data, for example, to reduce the cost of preparation—then we need to make sure that people are comfortable that when data are supplied to the board their use is protected and safeguarded.
First, amendment No. 153 deletes subsection (4)(a), which states that disclosure can take place where there has been a legislative enactment to override the duty of confidentiality. My concern is that data are collected for one purpose by the ONS—statistical output—but the Government then seek access for a different purpose, which is almost using the ONS as a conduit for acquiring information. We should be very clear that the information gateway should not be through the ONS but between the two end users, which is why I am concerned about subsection (4)(a).
Amendment No. 154 leaves out subsection (4)(c). In clarification, given that information is provided to the board to enable it in clause 36(1) to undertake any of its functions, why is there an override in clause 36(4)(c)? I should have thought that the provisions of subsection (1) would be adequate to cover that.
Amendments Nos. 155 to 159 are on approved research and access to data. Amendment No. 155 would delete clause 36(4)(h), and the other amendments are consequential on that. I am concerned about why approved researchers might need access to information that would enable them to identify somebody. Why cannot that information be provided to them in an anonymous form so that they cannot trace which individuals supplied it? I would welcome clarification of that point.
Clause 36(10) contains exemptions on the use of data in cases where a person did not reasonably believe that they could have identified a person from the data that they used. On paragraph (c), I shall return to the example of the 2001 census to illustrate the ease with which it is possible to identify a person from data collected from different sources. Information was collected at postcode level, so data were collected, for example, for SO31 6NL, where I live. There are22 houses covered by that postcode. I do not know the domestic circumstances of all the residents of The Vale, but an analysis of the data might be sufficient to identify which individuals supplied which data, based on the number of children in a household, people’s occupations and qualifications and so on. We should be careful in giving carve-outs exempting people from prosecution because the granularity of the data provided, in conjunction with other publicly available information, could mean that people inadvertently or even deliberately find personal information.
Amendment No. 162 would amend clause 38, which enables the disclosure of information to service providers. A third party might be involved in the census, for example, or data collection and analysis might be subcontracted to service providers as part of the commercial arrangements that the board might make. The clause states that the board must consider whether it is
“necessary or appropriate to do so”.
It is interesting to compare that with clause 36(8), which states that approved researchers must sign a declaration to demonstrate that they have understood the requirements of that clause. No similar obligation is placed on third-party service providers. There should be a degree of consistency between the provisions for approved researchers and service providers.

John Healey: The amendments bring us to the part of the Bill that is concerned with confidentiality and data access. I suspect that we shall return in more detail to some of the points that have been raised when we consider subsequent clauses.
The ONS and the government statistical service have a long history of maintaining data confidentiality. They already hold securely sensitive data including census returns, employee earnings and businesses’ profits. We are taking steps, not only in the Bill, to allow the continuation of data sharing and to extendit under certain tightly controlled circumstances, increasing the safeguards as we do so. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that they need to be sharper: I say that they will be stronger protections. The Bill introduces a criminal sanction against the unlawful disclosure of information concerning both individuals and businesses, whether held by board members and employees or anyone to whom the board has passed data that identify an individual or business or allow someone to deduce that identity.
We are conscious of the human rights implications of the proposals and we are sensitive to the need to strike an appropriate balance between the wider public interest in data sharing and the rights of individuals. The data sharing and confidentiality clauses are considered compatible with the convention on human rights.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth rightly recognises the benefits to statistics and public policy of data sharing, as do the Government and I. He is concerned about the definition of “approved researcher” in the Bill, which was why he tabled amendment No. 199. I want to make it clear on the record that the definition is not limited to individuals in academic institutions, which was his principal concern.
Amendments Nos. 153 to 162 would all limit the board’s ability to carry out the functions that it is required by the Bill to discharge. With regard to amendment No. 162, the board needs to be able to disclose information to service providers. I think that the hon. Member for Fareham would accept, for example, that the board must be able to pass data to an external IT provider that has been contracted to undertake crucial data processing on behalf of the board, as the ONS did when carrying out the 2001 census. I hope that after those remarks, right hon. and hon. Members will be content not to press their amendments, although they may wish to return to some of the points and examine them, together with the principal case underlying our approach, in more detail as our deliberations continue.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response. It would perhaps be useful to follow up in correspondence some of the detailed legal advice that he has taken, but I am happy with the strength of the response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Kevin Brennan.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Seven o’clock till Thursday 25 January at Nine o’clock.